Ever since live service games took off there's been a lot of debate about what makes a successful one. While there is a variety of factors, the most hotly debated metric has always been player count. Recently this has come to the forefront again as Helldivers 2 losing 90% of its player base has become the hot topic. But as is the case with most things, there never is a black and white answer, and this is indeed the case once again with Helldivers 2, and live service games in general.
On the surface, when you read a game like Helldivers 2 has seen a 90% drop of it's player base fall off and move on it likely will make you perk up. It sounds like a lot and it is. I'm sure if you asked PlayStation or Arrowhead Studio's they'd like to see the number higher. Who wouldn't? But once you dig a bit deeper and get over the initial wow factor, it's not as bad is it's made out to be and it is infact quite common. You can argue over the %, the the fact is most games, regardless of the type of game, see a massive drop off in player base. It is simply the nature of the fast pace of gaming and fans wanting the next big thing.
And yes let's be clear, while the game has had a lot of success there's been plenty of errors made along the way, specifically the whole PlayStation account fiasco which they at least did the right thing on by reversing.
Helldivers 2 was by no means a sure fire hit as of 6 months ago. Most didn't even know what the Helldivers franchise was before the second one released and took the world by storm. For it to have the sales and numbers it hit in and of itself is a massive success story. It also can help explain some of the drop offs. This wasn't expected to be some major blockbuster, but even most blockbusters suffer huge declines. By comparison games such as Destiny 2 had dropped by 75% in the same time frame Helldivers 2 has. Diablo 4 had reportedly seen its player base drop 60% within it's first month of season one content. I could list a million examples here, but the point is it is far more likely a game see's a big drop off in player base than it is to see a steady base or even climbing base. And sure you can point to those numbers not being 90% as an attempt at a gotcha, but again we're talking about major pillars in gaming here and they still dropped a ton. The Fortnite's of the world are an exception, not a rule.
Ultimately as long as there is a significant player base within the game so that you can find players to enjoy the game with, this isn't as big of a deal as some want to make it. This isn't like were talking about a game that had 1,000 players and it's now down to 100 and it's tough to get a game. There is 1 exception to this that I'll touch on later.
Content Updates Are Key
The people that want to use the player base argument usually follow it up with something along the lines of "that's what live service is, to keep players engaged". To a degree they are, but the key part of all of this when it comes to a live service game is content. Fresh, new content is what makes a live service game. It's also what gives these games the ebbs and flows of player engagement. A live service launches, see's a peak in players and declines as players finish the current batch of content. They launch smaller pieces of content here and there to get small boosts in player counts and then launch a big content update which in turn brings in a huge influx of players. Those players complete that content and the player count drops. It's the nature of these games.
Again to use Destiny 2 as an example it was at its lowest point in player base not too long ago, having lost 85% of its base on Steam, announced a big update was coming. This caused the player base to spike a bit before the launch. Once the expansion launched the player base almost hit its original peak as players flooded back in. That expansion has been out less than a month as of this writing and the player base has dipped 66%. Player's finished it and mostly moved on and will continue to do so. The nature of the beast that is live service.
PvP Vs PvE Live Service
Perhaps the biggest part of all of this is the difference in a PvP focused live service game and a PvE focused game. Games like Fortnite, Apex Legends, Rainbow Six Siege etc etc lean heavily into PvP. Those types of games are better suited towards player retention because in theory PvP can be different every time. Sure the maps are the same and the loadout's and things like that, but you are playing other people which makes it inherently different and fresh. A PvE game is the same over and over again. The same mission, the same grind trying to get better gear. Everyone's breaking point on that grind is different, but eventually everyone gets sick of it and needs something new. You take a break and either come back later or wait for that new content.
This is why most of the games that are great at player retention are those PvP games. Of course there are some exceptions, but in general those games stay fresh the longest without the need for constant content. That doesn't mean they don't need more content, just that they are less reliant on it to keep players engaged than a PvE game.
Free Vs Paid
This in my opinion is the one area where player retention actually should be talked about. A game like Helldivers 2, which has sold over 12 million copies does not need player retention in the same vein as something like Apex Legends which is free. While Helldivers 2 and other paid live service games have micro-transactions, it isn't the only source of revenue. If Helldivers 2 dropped to zero players tomorrow and didn't get played once until a new content update it could feasibly be fine financially because it's made all that money on its sales. People have already given them money just to get into the game even if they never play it again. Obviously they'd like you to stick around, but it's not the same necessity as it is for free to play.
Free to play on the other hand is the one area where player retention is vital to the games success. Without players there quite literally is no revenue. No one bought the game for them to at least say "well hey we at least got out $40 out of them". Free to play lives and breathes on getting people to buy in game items and without the mass player counts doing so won't So if Helldiver's was free to play I think you'd have a much better leg to stand on in the whole debate.
Ultimately this is simply my opinion. I am not a Helldiver's 2 player, nor am I a big fan of live service games in general so I'm not trying to defend something I love. I'm sure I'll still see some "cope" messages regardless but that's normal. But what I am doing is hopefully giving people at least some food for thought before they engage in another "game X has lost its player base its going down in flames". Keep enjoying those games!
